81–90 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_... No, that still falls into fallacious usage. The user doesn't justify why the steps of their assertion follow after the other. Just that they... do.
Overwhelming empirical data across history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_... No, that still falls into fallacious usage. The user doesn't justify why the steps of their assertion follow after the other. Just that they... do.
No one needs to justify the "why" when we're talking about a very well trodden slippery slope.
I think I would be okay with companies like Microsoft collecting data on me if they make it more clear what data they are collecting, what they’re using the data for, having the ability to disable data collection (defaulted to disable preferably), and being able to download and have a guid to understand my own data.
As a dev myself I know all of that is difficult and sounds ridiculous, but I really do think we have a right to the data collected on us and on our behavior. Transparency, ownership, and access, that’s all I ask.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is, but people try to get away with it by using a mistakenly committed config file from a few years back to argue that the URL’s are now MIT’d. The commit was quickly reverted, but they didn’t rewrite history to totally remove it, and now here we are.
That sounds like they legally released it under MIT. They legally can't just revoke a license grant, even completely unpublishing it by rewriting git history wouldn't solve that.
If at some point I want to turn my application more commercial friendly by amending the license or changing it completely, and people tell me "No haha sorry you released as MIT at some point so it's now free forever mate" I would get pissed off and stray away from open source altogether. At least this is how the "you can't revoke a license" argument feels to me. But like I said, past versions that include a specific license should still be governed by that license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one needs to justify the "why" when we're talking about a very well trodden slippery slope.
Fallacies don't just stop applying when it's convenient to elide justification.
Over the course of the last 20 years, we've seen that once a data collection and digital surveillance framework is put in place, the surveillance tends to expand.
Slippery slope arguments, sans good reasoning, tend to be fallacies. However, don't fall into the trap of thinking that an argument backed by historical record is a slippery slope just because it's predicting an outcome. We might call that the "history is all slippery slopes" fallacy. Stating "this has happened before multiple times before, and each time has lead to x" is a very different argument to stating "this has happened, so the logical extrapolation is x".
Is this needed? You can disable telemetry from the settings: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/supporting/FAQ#_how-to-di...
This has been an issue in the past: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/16131 Telemetry not being disabled I have disabled telemetry as described in the FAQ. I have set the following properties in the settings: [..] Now despite of this, when I log my network traffic (with Wireshark) I can see that Visual Studio Code periodically contacts vortex.data.microsoft.com. For the record, Even with: [..] I still see co…
https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/16131#issuecommen...
Though there's no explanation for why VS Code continues to ping vortex.d.m.c even after updating is disabled. Hmmm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a fallacy. When a printer driver reporting stats back to the manufacturer made national news in the early 2000s and prompted calls for laws regulating privacy, the argument was that it was a slippery slope fallacy to assert that privacy violations would get worse. Look at where we are now.
>>It's not a fallacy. By itself no, but it is often used fallaciously. Such as in this case, when someone is opposing some good thing on the basis that that good thing might, some day, lead to bad things.
Our entire legal system is predicated on common law precedent. So it is very valid in many cases to argue that allowing something good now, might set us up for something very bad later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame we have to assume the worst. What would be better is for Microsoft to be more transparent about the telemetry and to enable more granular control. That said, I wouldn't bother checking as I don't really care. I rub shoulders with infosec issues daily, as most IT folk do these days. When I think about the perceived risk of telemetry from VSCode, now and in the future it's a negligible risk that I accept.
They are actually very transparent about the telemetry they collect, and they offer granular control. There is a log of all events sent to MS, and a page in settings dedicated to the different types of telemetry they can be enabled.